Monday, October 22, 2012
DNC Chairwoman Goes Stone-Cold Stupid on Obama's "Kill List"
You gotta' check this one out.
On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die...
The Times "kill list" story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators…[But] That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010...The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.
But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.
Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:
Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.
One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.
Friday, October 19, 2012
No Whine, Just Shine
The first “creeping crud” makes me sick. The second type sickens the whole culture.
And it has really plumbed the depths this time around regarding irrationality and immorality, hasn’t it? Bold misrepresentations of the economic numbers. Cover-ups of the scandals of Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and more. Lying about the abortion mandates of Obamacare. Playing the patsy to Muslim extremists and the Communist thugs of China and Russia. Refusing to defend DOMA. Pimping for Planned Parenthood. A dramatic escalation of the welfare state while dismantling America’s national security. Wow.
And, of course, the lies about these things do not just come from the political ads and the speeches but also from the press, Hollywood, the big union bosses, and the other powers that be.
However, the Christian who is trained in the Holy Scriptures should not be completely surprised at this state of affairs. Saddened, yes. Even horrified. But not surprised. For the Bible has made it clear that the last days would be marked by unprecedented levels of lies, violence, false religion, sexual perversion, lawlessness, and a zealous hatred for God and those who serve Him.
Furthermore, even in such a wicked arena, the Christian need not be cowed. Ours is not to whine and hunker down nor is it to just turn up the volume of our “contemporary Christian music” and act as if these evils are not, in fact, on the loose. No, our duty remains the same as that proscribed for believers of all eras, all locales, all situations. We are to put on the armor of God; wield well the sword of the Spirit; pray without ceasing; and confidently, joyfully enter into the fray.
It's time to stop the whining -- whining that these days are not like the good old days of yore. And it's time to stop the pining -- pining for the rapture (a deliverance I very much believe in, by the way) or even the delights of our future state. Yes, of course; heaven should be a huge motivation for us. But it's a motivation for us to invest our lives for Christ now rather than twiddling our time away until then.
Rejecting both the whining and the pining leaves us then the noble and adventurous option -- shining. Specifically, shining the light, love and truth of Christ all around us.
Christians are called (and, praise God, we are also fully equipped) to a humble, heaven-anticipating lifestyle – one that involves a dedication to personal purity, Bible study, prayer, gratitude, joy, and a willingness to bear the banner of authentic holiness everywhere it is needed. That includes the family. That includes the church, the neighborhood, social institutions. That includes the marketplace. That includes the arts. And, yes, that includes politics.
Has the Tipping Moment Arrived?
I've seen these guys there often and exchanged pleasantries from time to time. After all, we tend to sit at the same tables which are only a couple of feet away. And whatever talk I've noticed from these guys in the past has tended along the lines of weather, home projects, local business gossip (including union affairs), and the Huskers.
But today it was politics. And specifically, it was about changes of mind about the political parties. I got the definite impression that I was overhearing Democrats who were getting ready to leave their party...or perhaps who already had bolted. For instance, I heard them laugh at an unkind joke about Deb Fischer but the subsequent conversation revealed that none of them were going to vote for her opponent, Bob Kerrey. Their remarks about him were downright brutal.
Next the talk shifted to how extremely well Mitt Romney had fared at last night's Al Smith dinner in New York. They all loved his performance, thought his jokes were far funnier than Obama's, and thought the barbs within Romney's jokes were much more to the point.
Then one of the guys brought up Obama's support the other night of Planned Parenthood and how it disgusted him. Another one said, "Well, what do you expect from a guy who's voted against stopping even partial-birth abortion?" They all seemed to agree that was beyond the pale.
Sure, this table talk is just one incident but I don't think it's an isolated one. When you read about the change in the poll numbers, see the difference in the crowd numbers between the candidates, learn about other examples where Obama's extremism and incompetence have turned people off -- it's pretty easy to feel a surge of optimism about a change in direction for the country.
But we've still got a long way to go. So keep praying. Keep telling people the truth. Put up the yard signs and take other ways to support the right candidates overcome the liberal media in these final weeks.
Romney's Worst Debate Whiff Was on Planned Parenthood
True enough, a Romney presidency wouldn't be nearly as bad for the pro-life cause as another ghastly Obama term would be (include the issues of marriage and religious freedom in the mix too), but Republicans and moral-minded independents must resolve now to push Romney and all other Republicans extremely hard on these matters.
Anyhow, here's Professor New's comments:
As has been noted in this space, federal funding for Planned Parenthood took on a surprisingly prominent role during Tuesday’s presidential debate. On four separate occasions, President Obama criticized Governor Romney for pledging to defund Planned Parenthood. President Obama even promoted the claim that Planned Parenthood does mammograms, recently exposed by NRO for the falsehood that it is. All of this was certainly not coincidental. The Obama campaign’s internal research obviously must show that Planned Parenthood funding appeals to a segment of voters.
Mitt Romney seemed content to avoid the issue. He defended himself on contraception, stating that “every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” However, when it came to federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Romney could have used the test for federal programs he introduced in the first debate, and said that subsidizing the nation’s largest abortion provider is not so critical it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. He could have added that this is especially the case considering that there are allegations that Planned Parenthood has misused Medicaid funds, and that the organization is under congressional investigation for a range of potentially criminal misdeeds.
Romney’s reluctance to engage President Obama on Planned Parenthoood funding should be of interest to pro-lifers. The LiveAction sting videos and other pro-life efforts have succeeded in tarnishing Planned Parenthood reputation in conservative circles, but unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s reputation remains solid elsewhere. But pro-lifers can still take heart: The fact that federal funding for Planned Parenthood is now a salient issue during Presidential debates is good evidence of pro-life progress.
("The Surprising Prominence of Planned Parenthood" by Michael J. New at NRO's The Corner)
Uh, I Guess the Networks Forgot to Mention These Stories.
* Remember those surprisingly improved jobless numbers that came out last week -- those numbers that the media joyfully trumpeted as being "proof" that President Obama was finally turning the economy right-side up? Well, as you may know by now, it turned out the numbers were better only because California had failed to fully reveal their jobless claims. And now we learn that the bureaucrat who dramatically under-reported those unemployment claims was one Marty Morgenstern, a Democrat who has contributed to Barack Obama in the past. Surprised? I didn't think so.
* Homosexuals are celebrating yesterday's momentous ruling by the U.S appeals court in New York which struck down as unconstitutional a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act and declared for the first time that homosexuals are a minority group deserving of special protection from discrimination under the Constitution.
"America is in decline; fewer people are working; more are in poverty; economic growth is stagnant at best; more Americans than ever believe that our best days are behind us. But one thing in America is booming: welfare. Especially federal welfare." (Read the rest of John Hinderaker's excellent PowerLine column here.)
* "In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been. Here’s the upshot: Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year." (Wow. "The 7-Eleven Presidency" by Jeffrey Anderson over at The Weekly Standard is an eye-opening one, indeed.)
* You'd never guess this from the pronounced presence of homosexual celebrities, the number of homosexual characters on TV, or the powerful influence homosexual activists seem to have in the courts, the education establishment, government bureaucracies, and on the political agenda of the Democrat Party, but the latest findings are that the "LGBT population" is only 3.4% of Americans.
* About all that pink gear being displayed by the NFL in it's stated goal to help raise breast cancer awareness -- I'm guessing you're not aware that only 5% of the sales from the NFL's pink-themed items are actually being donated to the American Cancer Society. The NFL (already wealthy beyond imagination) is pocketing the rest.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Today's Posts
Here's One Liberal Newspaper That's Had More Than Enough of Obama
Obama Didn't Save GM, You Did. And Did You Get a Car Out of the Deal?
Will the Benghazi Lies Bring Down Obama?
Obama, Planned Parenthood Just Can't Stop Lying About Mammograms
Mr. Obama, When Will the "Change" Kick In?
Yes, An Abortion Extremist is Running for President
Quin Hillyer writes in the American Spectator about this clip,
A new SuperPac called Women Speak Out, affiliated with the Susan B. Anthony List (both organizations are deserving of support), released yesterday the single most powerful pro-life ad I've ever seen.
The ad is slated to run in the Hampton Roads, VA area, to start with. In my humble opinion, it needs to run in selected places nationwide (and surely will do so if the funds are forthcoming).
The background: In Illinois, Barack Obama voted four times against a bill that would have provided protections to babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions. Here was his quote explaining what he was opposing: " If that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming up limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?"
Well, uh, yes. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for a second physician, in addition to the (failed) abortionist, take a look to see if the child is still alive, rather than just relying on the "doctor" who, after all, just tried to kill it.
Anyway, there are a whole lot of such survivors of attempted abortions, many of whom are visible on various You Tube videos here. The new ad has a clip from one such survivor, the beautiful Melissa Ohden, who also can be seen here, in a CBN interview.
Pro-lifers all over the country are (and should be) working to make the new ad go viral. I think it is breathtaking.
Here's One Liberal Newspaper That's Had More Than Enough of Obama
First of all because it endorses Mitt Romney for President in such an eloquent, effective and comprehensive way. Comprehensive, indeed. The editorial is perhaps 4 times longer than a normal newspaper editorial column.
But second of all, this editorial strongly endorsing Romney is remarkable because it comes from the New York Observer, a weekly newspaper which has always leaned center-liberal. It endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.
I print several excerpts from the piece below.
A candidate has emerged from the rough and tumble of the primaries with his dignity intact. The system has produced not a demagogue but a manager, a candidate whose experience is rooted in the pragmatism of the business world rather than the ideology of partisan politics.
That candidate is Mitt Romney…
The Observer endorses Mr. Romney’s candidacy and urges readers to support him.
Four years ago, Barack Obama captured the imagination of many Americans with his thrilling message of change…America supported that candidate (as did this newspaper), but his presidency, so filled with promise and potential, has failed to deliver the change America needs…
Class warfare might be a successful strategy for cobbling together 270 electoral votes. But it’s not the way to unite a divided nation.
The president comes to town on a Monday, takes our money, shakes our hands and tells us how much he values the CEOs and innovators of New York. And then on Tuesday, he turns around and refers to business leaders as fat cat bankers whose success was created by the sweat of others. That’s not a friend. That’s not a leader. That’s a politician.
Mitt Romney stands out because—unlike so many candidates in the past—he understands how to build businesses, create efficiencies, make tough deals and carefully consider divergent viewpoints. America needs a strong leader, a practical leader. Mr. Romney knows full well that it would be a tragic mistake to simply assume that the United States will continue to be the world’s economic powerhouse simply because that’s what we’ve been for decades.
America earned its global prominence because of the nation’s culture of work and individual freedom. That’s why immigrants came here and continue to come here—not because they seek a handout, but because they want a chance to work and to create and to innovate. In today’s competitive economy, the country needs competitors, not class-war crybabies…
While we admire Mr. Obama, we believe he squandered an opportunity to bring positive change to Washington—and what change he did bring will burden future generations. We continue to rack up debt, buy services we cannot afford and allow unfunded liabilities to continue to grow. This has to end.
Rather than reimagining government’s role in society and the economy by embracing the courageous alternatives proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission two years ago, Mr. Obama turned to neo-New Deal policies. Rather than building creative partnerships with the private sector, the president chose to demonize the successful. Rather than strengthen the nation’s relationship with Israel as the Arab world imploded, Mr. Obama treated Jerusalem as less a friend than a burden…
At the macro level, Mr. Romney could not be more clear: Job creation—not what he memorably called “trickle-down government”—must be Washington’s priority. That position stands in remarkable contrast to Mr. Obama’s priorities when he took office, as he used his mandate to ram through Obamacare, the largest expansion of government since the Great Society.
But Mr. Romney knows that the key to job creation lies not in Washington, but on both Wall Street and Main Street, where the creativity of capitalism and the vision of risk-takers can chart a new course for millions who have seen their prospects dim over the last four years. Bill Clinton said that those who work hard and play by the rules should be assured of a bright future. But the last four years have seen millions of hard workers consigned to the unemployment line and some 46 million become dependent on food stamps—up from 31 million in 2008…
Credit where it is due: under President Obama, the world’s master terrorist met his demise at the business end of American weaponry.
Other than that undeniable achievement, Mr. Obama’s conduct of foreign policy and national security has been incoherent and ineffective, as the continuing and ever-changing saga of the terrorist murder of U.S. diplomats in Libya demonstrates.
But for so many New Yorkers, the most disconcerting failure of the Obama years has been the nation’s deteriorating relationship with Israel. He foolishly sought to create strategic separation between Washington and Jerusalem, believing that this would somehow impress the Arab world’s dictators and demagogues. Precisely why this would be in the national interest remains a mystery—in any case, the shift was a strategic disaster…
The United States simply cannot afford another four years of weak leadership. The genius of American capitalism and the moral authority of American foreign policy must be restored.
Mitt Romney has a plan to do both. He has the credentials to restore the economy and to defend American values in a hostile world. He has the skills to help create jobs and a brighter future for our country.
This election is a true turning point for the next generation. Mitt Romney is the change the nation needs. And he is the change New York needs.
Obama Didn't Save GM, You Did. And Did You Get a Car Out of the Deal?
Note to Obama fans: GM did go bankrupt – filing for Chapter 11 protection against its creditors on June 1, 2009. It’s what happened next that the president can take credit for – a handout of $49.5 billion in taxpayer money to GM, some $27 billion of which remains outstanding, and another $17 billion to its financial arm Ally Financial, which still owes $14.7 billion.
In other words, Obama didn’t save General Motors; American taxpayers did, with an assist from the Federal Reserve. While liberals rant about the bailouts of Wall Street, it is worthwhile noting that of the $417 billion in TARP funds spent to stabilize the economy, only $65 billion has yet to be repaid – and more than half of that is owed by GM and Chrysler. The latest TARP report from the Congressional Budget Office says that the government invested nearly $80 billion in those two auto giants and that taxpayers are still on the hook for roughly $37 billion.
In the same report, the CBO projects that handouts to Wall Street firms will ultimately net the government a cool $11 billion profit. They say the auto industry, on the other hand, will never pay back taxpayers. According to the congressional bean counters, $20 billion is gone for good.
Where did that money go? Mainly, it went to paying off debts owed by GM and Chrysler, and – in an historic distortion of our bankruptcy proceedings – to securing the pensions and livelihoods of UAW workers. It turns out the real debt was that of Mr. Obama to organized labor, which had ponied up some $400 million to help him defeat John McCain...
Infuriated yet? Well, hold on. Because the story is far from over. Zip on over to Liz Peek's excellent article in the Fiscal Times and finish reading "Obama’s Auto Bailout Was Really a Hefty Union Payoff."
And pass it on.
Will the Benghazi Lies Bring Down Obama?
Read the rest of this detailed, devastating review by Daren Jonescu over at American Thinker, "Benghazi: Emperor Obama's Waterloo?"
A remarkable read, indeed.
Obama, Planned Parenthood Just Can't Stop Lying About Mammograms
The Great Planned Parenthood Mammogram Scam Exposed...by the Obama Administration?
Casey Mattox from the Alliance Defense Fund has written an absolutely first-rate article exposing the deliberate lies of Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama, and Democrats everywhere, about mammograms.
This is most definitely pass around material.
A deliberate effort is underway to rebrand Planned Parenthood as an integral provider of healthcare services, without which untold millions of women would lack basic medical care, or so the story goes. Thus, whenever any effort is made to cut off funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider and stalwart financier of leftist politicians, we’re told there is a “war on women.”
But it’s not a “war on women” when a state simply places a higher priority on funds for true health services that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform Take, for example, mammograms.
Yes, mammograms. Perhaps there is no greater falsehood than the deceitful, and largely successful, attempt to persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms. It doesn’t.
When the Komen Foundation announced in February that it would no longer provide grants to Planned Parenthood—partly due to the fact that Planned Parenthood does not directly provide mammograms - its ideological and political supporters sprang into action. They decried Komen’s decision to eliminate funding for this imagined provider of mammograms. Planned Parenthood’s Executive Director, Cecile Richards, , made the claim. So did President Obama. And an unsuspecting public was led to believe that such bold claims, by people who should know, must be true.
No matter that phone calls to Planned Parenthood from Live Action demonstrated clearly that this was not the case: Obama had spoken. And the president’s campaign together with Planned Parenthood’s ads continue to beat this drum (almost as if they were coordinated), building off the earlier confusion to frighten voters about the prospect of a Romney administration cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood’s “cancer screenings.”
Anytime someone suggests to you that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, I encourage you to share with them this letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services demonstrating that it’s untrue. [The link to the Pdf copy of the government's letter can be found in the article itself -- follow the link given above.] No Planned Parenthood clinic in the country is authorized to perform mammograms. If they are nevertheless performing them, they are violating federal law.
Under the federal Mammogram Quality Standards Act, administered by HHS, “[n]o facility may conduct an examination or procedure…involving mammography” without a certification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While a 2004 amendment to this law permits some states to also authorize mammography facilities, these certificates are still issued under the authority of the FDA, and the FDA records all certificates and investigates facilities holding such certifications. In short, there is no uncertainty: if Planned Parenthood could perform mammograms, the FDA (and HHS) would know it.
When President Obama and other Planned Parenthood partisans were making their mammogram claims, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a Freedom of Information Act request to seek any certificates held by any Planned Parenthood clinic or affiliate in the country. The response from President Obama’s own HHS is that no such certificates exist. No Planned Parenthood affiliate in the nation possesses the necessary certification to perform mammograms under federal law. Subsequent e-mails to the department further confirmed this fact…
Some Planned Parenthood clinics may provide much less effective manual breast exams. And some encourage women to perform self-exams, which breast cancer organizations like the Komen Foundation actually discourage as counterproductive to women’s health. And, in some cases, Planned Parenthood employees may tell a woman she should go get a mammogram from one of the public facilities that could have provided one to her in the first place. But in order to get a mammogram, a woman needs to go to someplace other than Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood and the politicians it supports must persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood is a full-service women’s health provider—a critical part of our health infrastructure—in order to keep the spigot of taxpayer dollars open. And so continues the deliberate campaign to deceive the public into believing the falsehood that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms for women who otherwise wouldn’t have them.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform mammograms. And President Obama’s own administration agrees. Perhaps with this lie exposed, we can now have a serious discussion about the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood and its political allies.
Mr. Obama, When Will the "Change" Kick In?
Here's a particularly level-headed, effective political clip from RightChange.com. I'd suggest you pass it on via Facebook, e-mail contacts, and so on.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Abortion President: Serving Planned Parenthood, Not America
Mr. President, your economic policies have been a disaster. Your foreign policy has been inept, cowardly and disgracefully unjust. But what most moves me to oppose your reelection is your despotic trampling on religious freedom and your evil zealotry concerning abortion.
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20)
Debate #2 Wrap
* The liberal "moderator" certainly showed her hand last night -- and it was a very heavy hand at that: interrupting Mitt Romney 28 times (only 9 with Obama), giving Obama 9% more time, actively joining the President's side on Libya, and helping out Obama in several other ways.
* On this same matter, see "Obama's Candy" by George Neumayr over at American Spectator.
* Here's a Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters in Nevada who, after the 2nd debate, say they now support Mitt Romney.
* "Question by Question, Romney’s Night" by John O’Sullivan at NRO.
* "Once Again, Obama’s Record Wins It for Romney" by David Harsanyi at Human Events.
* "Obama Went Aggressive – and Looked Offensive" by Janet Daley at the Telegraph.
So he decided to make up for being too passive last time. That was predictable enough. In fact, everybody and his wife was predicting that Barack Obama would go on the offence for this one and that's exactly what he did. But there is an important difference between between being on the offensive and being offensive which his advisers seemed to have missed. Time and again, he interrupted both Romney and the chairman. He may not have sniggered and laughed out loud but there was definitely an air of the Joe Biden playbook here.
It was a messier debate all around with questions coming from unexpected (and some will argue, tangential) directions. But the important fact was that Romney won on points and on manner. He remained calm and fluent – even under provocation – and seemed completely secure in his grasp of detail. Obama was defensive (understandably perhaps because he is the incumbent having to defend his record) but more significantly, he did not seem to have the command of fact that his opponent had. The President often hesitated and appeared to lose focus – a trait which has been noted before when he speaks off the cuff. In what looked like desperation in the final moments, he fell back on a reminder of the infamous Romney "47 per cent" gaffe. This looked cheap, considering that it is now very old news which has been buried by Romney's later performances...
* Here's a clip from, of all places MSNBC, which shows a panel of "undecided voters" talking after the debate. And what they have to say isn't good news for Barack Obama at all.
* From Dick Morris' morning column, "Romney Won the 2nd Debate" --
By scoring big on the economy, gas prices, and Libya, Romney continued his victorious string of debate wins. He looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas.
Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his Vice President's mistakes. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.
But the key reason for the Romney win was substantive…
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
"Flexibility" Now: Radio Free Europe Ends Broadcasts to Russia
Well, it appears that the Obama administration has shown some "flexibility" to their Communist friends even before that.
Here, from the Washington Free Beacon, is the story on Radio Free Europe's sudden end to broadcasts to Russia.
America’s broadcast voice in Russia will soon be silenced following Moscow’s ratification of a new law that will force a legendary broadcasting company to abandon the Russian airwaves.
Radio Liberty (RL), a division of the U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe (RFE), recently fired a large portion of its staff after the passage of a Russian law prohibiting foreign-owned media outlets from broadcasting on AM frequencies.
The unexpected mass layoffs came as a shock to RL journalists and Russian human rights activists alike, and spurred accusations that the Obama administration is kowtowing to Russian President Vladimir Putin as he seeks to silence the democratic voice that helped topple communism.
“The timing of it, the way it was done, and the lack of explanation” sends an unfortunate message, said David Kramer, president of the human rights organization Freedom House. “It creates the impression, whether intended or not, that the U.S. is pulling out [of Russia], and that’s not the impression we want to leave.”
On Nov. 10, RL, known by locals as Radio Svoboda, will cease its AM broadcasts after nearly 60 years on the airwaves...
Soon after the radio measure was approved, RL axed the majority of its veteran reporters, radio hosts, and editors—a move viewed as suspicious to many on the inside. A handful of additional RL staffers quit in protest following the firings.
Experts fear that the disappearance of RL’s independent voice from the airwaves will allow Putin’s regime to further tighten its grip on the flow of information in Russia.
“I think they have already destroyed the radio so much loved and followed by those Russian listeners who stand for freedom and democracy,” Mario Corti, a former director of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service, told the Free Beacon. “They are lying to the media by playing down the scale of the firings.”...
The BBG and RFE’s leadership are acting in a shortsighted manner, others maintain. A pro-democracy presence is needed more than ever in an increasingly authoritarian Russia, these experts say.
RL’s overseers in D.C. “are not Russia specialists or journalists,” griped another source familiar with the station’s operations. “It’s really a blow against the American radio presence and American media presence at a time when Putin is already doing all he can to undermine Western influence.”
A “perfect storm” is brewing in Russia as Putin’s regime cracks down on Western freedoms, the RFE source warned.
“This is capitulating to Putin, and Putin is very sophisticated and knows how to work the Americans,” the former executive said. “The reaction [by the Obama administration] has been too limp.”
“It doesn’t surprise me in the least that there’s been little pushback from the administration because they don’t want to piss off the Russians,” the source said, pointing to President Barack Obama’s policy of a “reset” with Russia...
Obama's Jobs Results? Add 1, Subtract 10
Here's an enlightening new chart from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)